The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the intention of the accused, with grave provocation leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.56 of 2018, dated 08.03.2023, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 21.06.2017, at about 06.00 p.m., due to previous enmity, the accused conspired to do away with the life of the deceased. A.1 pushed the deceased and assaulted him with a wooden log on his forehead. Thereafter, A.2 and A.3 also attacked the deceased with sticks. When the deceased's sister intervened, A.2 and A.3 pushed her onto the road. Due to the injuries sustained, the deceased died.

3.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.194 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed charges as against A.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 294(b), 341 and 302 of I.P.C and also framed charges as against A.2 and A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 120-B and 302 read with 34 of I.P.C.

4.On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.22 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court acquitted A.2 and A.3 and found A.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive as well as the conspiracy. Therefore, the Trial Court acquitted A.2 and A.3. Further, even against A.1, the prosecution failed to prove the charges with clinching evidence. According to the prosecution's case, the accused went to the house of the deceased, where a quarrel took place between the deceased and A.1. Initially, the deceased had assaulted the accused, and in order to protect himself from the deceased, A.1 took a wooden log from the deceased’s house and assaulted him on the forehead. Therefore, the charge under Section 302 of the IPC is not applicable. Even then, the Trial Court mechanically convicted the appellant.

7.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the prosecution clearly proved the motive behind the crime, as there was a dispute regarding the use of a common area situated between the houses of the accused and the deceased. At the time of the incident, the accused went to the deceased's house with an intention to do away with his life. Thereafter, A.1 picked up a wooden log and assaulted the deceased on the forehead, causing grievous injuries that led to his death. This is corroborated by the post-mortem report. As such, the prosecution has proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and the same does not warrant any interference.

8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9.Admittedly